Your Questions About Green Living

Information and Advice for My Green Future?

My Green Future
Allright guys… First and formost, I am a college student. Specifically a sophomore civil engineering student. A few years I became fascinated with the idea with going green and especially anything related to renewable energy. (Specifically the various forms of wind and solar) I cannot even begin to explain the passion I have in pursuing a degree that is going to help me with a long successful career with renewable energy. Now I have already talked to quite a few companies asking questions I think that are most beneficial to my cause, but I want to ask people outside of the formal business world and ask for their opinion’s as well as other suggestions and alternatives as to what they see as a route or path to success. Who knows, your help may also help others searching for similar questions that I might have. So in advance I would like to extend my appreciation to anyone that can help me out. Thanks alot!

Like I said above, I am currently in civil engineering, but the more research I do I keep finding that civil is probably not the type of engineering that is going to best suit me for a engineering career in renewable energy. I have narrowed down my selections to Industrial & Systems and Mechanical Engineering. I would include electrical, but I am at a point where switching and carrying credits over would affect me too much and do more harm than good. Now I already know that mechanical will probably best suit any renewable field but I am also curious where industrial and systems engineering might apply too?

Also aside from the business degree aspect what other degrees are being considered that will get someone a job in a renewable field?

I was also curious if anyone had some websites or forums or any other places that they would think are beneficial to others and I looking for information regarding the rewable field?

Is it time for a social uprising?

We could use $7,000,000,000 to become energy independent. We could use the money in a brand new energy bill. The new energy bill would help guide a process that would pay for research and design, update infrastructure, give subsidies to renewable energy companies subsidies to farmers, and small business grants for start-up green energy contractors and the companies who would manufacture the equipment necessary for conversion. The bill would help create thousands of new small businesses which would hire millions of Americans, and help grow existing green energy companies.

I called for Obama, my candidate, to return to congress 2 1/2 weeks ago (before McCain) and it fell on def ears. Now im asking him to change his tone on the bailout bill and call for a new energy bill instead. Im right. Dont doubt it. The Question is.. are the people in Obama’s inner circle capable of thinking freely or are they focused on bailing out their own “401k’s” and other investments? Im gonna vote for Obama, because his core principles are the same as mine. His policies are for the most part innovative and progressive. But he needs to start thinking independently from his advisers. He needs to start listening to the people who matter. Me.. im as middle class as it gets. Im a sub-urban 25 year old white guy with a 2 year old daughter and a dog. Im in real estate, im losing money, I cant pay my bills, and my clients cant get credit. Im willing to sacrifice my career in order to stop this bailout.

Americans have lived off of credit for to long. We dont even remember what it’s like to save money and pay cash for our homes and cars like our parents and grandparents did. Because of our credit addiction the dollar is inflated and the price of commodities has sky-rocketed. We need to become an ownership society again, not slowly progress into a bank dependent one. After almost 100 years of living off of a credit system which creates money out of thin air, our federal government and the federal reserve (which is no more federal than fed-ex) have proven that the credit system is flawed. Promoting ownership and reverting to the old monetary system which backed our money with gold bullion is the right way to run our country and is whats best for our people.

Because of our flaws as a people. Because of our flaws as a country, this generation, the most selfish generation must step up and allow themselves to suffer. We may have to go head first into a depression, but just like the great depression we will come out a stronger, better country than we were before. Sacrifice by our forefathers is what made our country great. Whether you like it or not, whether you are able to admit it to yourself, you know as well as I do that this country has lost it’s way. How will history remember us? Its time to stand up, stop whining, and start being Americans. If it calls for social uprising we must meet it. If it calls for revolution we must revolt. If it calls for sacrifice we must suffer. Sadly, I believe from the bottom of my heart, this will never happen. Our federal government has divided, manipulated, and bribed our people for too long. The violent and non violent protests that made our people strong for over 200 years ended with a thud some time before I was born in the early 1980’s. My generation is silent, oppressed, and absorbed by digital media. We are weak, lazy, and inebriated. This may be the end of the American dream. What would the great society of the 1950’s have to say if they knew what a fat, lazy people we have become?

Looking back was Nov 20th 2009 the day that “Global Warming” finally ended?

November 20, 2009 is an important date because it now looks like it was the day that “global warming” ended. It was the day that a total fabrication, a hoax, was revealed to be the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aided and abetted by a vast network of governmental and business leaders, a compliant media, and scientists who sold their souls for grants and other funding.

It was the day that Al Gore was shown to be unworthy to share a Nobel Peace Prize with the iniquitous IPCC, nor an Oscar for his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

It was the day that Cap-and-Trade legislation, the largest tax ever on energy use, was eviscerated as lacking any basis in science. The legislation proposed to establish a “carbon credits” trade that would have enriched the Chicago Climate Exchange created by investors that included Goldman Sachs. Following the “global warming” hoax revelations, the Exchange would close its doors within a year.
November 20 was the day that three thousand emails between the meteorologists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, specifically its director, Phil Jones, and Penn State’s Michael Mann, as well as others involved in the hoax were made available on the Internet.
The Washington Times reported that “Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected the revelations in the email exchanges, saying “I’m sticking with the 2,500,” referring to the IPCC climate science members. “These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.” This, like all the other assertions about “global warming” was a lie.

It must be noted that President Barack Obama continues to talk about “climate change”, the term used to replace “global warming”. His administration has many “global warming” advocates including his science advisor, Dr. John Holden, and Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in securing authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” as this is being written.

The administration’s funding through subsidies and mandates for “renewable energy” sources such as solar and wind energy is entirely based on the assertion that the generation of energy by coal-fired plants, is causing “global warming.” Neither solar, nor wind can even begin to provide sufficient energy for the nation, now or in the future. Support for ethanol, a biofuel, is equally without merit.
The primary assertion behind “global warming” was that it was “anthropogenic”, created by human activity, primarily the burning of “fossil fuels” by utilities to generate electricity and by industrial users. Similarly the use of oil derivatives, gasoline and diesel for transportation is blamed.

A segment of IPCC members did not support the global warming hoax and tried for years to marshall opposition to the Panel’s findings, published in reports shot through with baseless distortions and assertions that the Earth was heating to an extraordinary degree. Over time, they came forth and publicly disputed the IPCC for spreading the “global warming” hoax.

More here: http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/4679
Jeff if you actually read the article you’d see that it was a summary of many of the negative issues surrounding the AGW movement each of which relates to its own piece of evidence… I sense sour grapes!??!

Is one of the problems with cap & trade is that they really don’t have alternatives available?

What is Cap and Trade?
The goal: To steadily reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide in a cost-effective manner.

The cap: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. The firm must have an “emissions permit” for every ton of carbon dioxide it releases into the atmosphere. These permits set an enforceable limit, or cap, on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that the company is allowed to emit. Over time, the limits become stricter, allowing less and less pollution, until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is similar to the cap and trade program enacted by the Clean Air Act of 1990, which reduced the sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and it met the goals at a much lower cost than industry or government predicted.

The trade: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily. This creates a system that guarantees a set level of overall reductions, while rewarding the most efficient companies and ensuring that the cap can be met at the lowest possible cost to the economy.

The profits: If the federal government auctions the emissions permits to the companies required to reduce their emissions, it would create a large and dependable revenue stream. These financial resources could be used to achieve critical public policy objectives related to climate change mitigation and economic development. The federal government can also choose to “grandfather” allowances to the polluting firms by handing them out free based on historic or projected emissions. This would give the most benefits to those companies with higher baseline emissions that have historically done the least to reduce their pollution.

What Would a Successful Cap-and-Trade Program Look Like?
The goal: To limit the rise in global temperature to approximately 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by 2050 by reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions from companies as part of a larger plan for curbing global warming.

The cap: To achieve this goal, the U.S. government should steadily tighten the cap until emissions are reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Businesses would have to obtain permits entitling them to emit a certain quantity of carbon dioxide or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. All permits would be auctioned off by the government. Emissions permits in the near term would likely fall in the range of $10 to $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent.

The trade: Companies unable to meet their emissions quotas could purchase allowances from other companies that have acquired more permits than they need to account for their emissions. The cost of buying and selling these credits would be determined by the marketplace, which over time would reduce the cost of trading the credits as trading becomes more widespread and efficient.

The profits: Initial estimates by the Congressional Budget Office project that an economy-wide cap-and-trade program would generate at least $50 billion per year, but could reach up to $300 billion. Approximately 10 percent of this revenue should be allocated to help offset costs to businesses and shareholders of affected industries. Of the remaining revenue, approximately half should be devoted to help offset any energy price increases for low- and middle-income Americans that may occur as a result of the transition to more efficient energy sources. The other half of the remaining revenue should be used to invest in renewable energy, efficiency, low-carbon transportation technologies, green-collar job training, and the transition to a low-carbon economy. Some resources should also be invested in the energy, environment, and infrastructure sectors in developing nations to alleviate energy poverty with low-carbon energy systems and help these nations adapt to the inevitable effects of global warming. Revenues from the permit auction would essentially be “recycled” back into the economy to facilitate the transition to an efficient, low-carbon energy economy and ensure that consumers are not unduly burdened by potentially higher energy costs.

Now here is the problem: Coal which is the worst polluter provides about 1/2 of our electricity which means those power plants either have to convert to some other power source or buy carbon credits which of course they will pass the cost onto the consumer. Solar & wind power which is the cleanest only provides about 5% of our power and is a decade or more away from being a major provider. Nuclear energy which is about the only source of power available that can readily replace coal, oil & natural gas the liberals don’t want anything to do with. Natural gas is the cleane

Is Cap-and-trade the biggest scam of all?

It is truly amazing that anyone really familiar with the so-called cap-and-trade bill could actually accept this legislation or in Congress, vote for it.

First, it is erroneous to think that it would have any effect on global warming because carbon dioxide is not the cause, it is the effect but unfortunately that battle won in the halls of science is lost in the halls of congress.

Second, it is also erroneous to say that the bill would cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions because most “greenhouse-gas emissions” are water vapor – carbon dioxide is a relatively small portion of such emissions.

The House bill is falsely alleged to cut U.S. greenhouse-gas 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It would also establish a new Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which would force utilities to supply a minimum amount of their electricity from renewable energy sources. The result will be: (1) everything used by the public will increase in price because of increased costs to producers from the need to acquire “carbon credits” for their operations will be passed on to consumers and, (2) requiring utilities to change their the means of power production from whatever is being used now to “renewable energy sources,” however defined, will necessarily increase the cost of electricity to homeowners because new “sources” will be more expensive to use that currently used fossil fuels.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/capandtrade_the_biggest_scam_o.html

http://blog.nj.com/southjerseylife/2009/06/news_viewpoint_global_warming.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783

How tragic this all is for the consumer!!